SB 


UC-NRLF 


THE     LARGE     SEED     FACTOR 


I  H 


CROP     PRODUCTION 


A  THESIS 


BY 


Lowrie  Baird  Nevin 


Presented  in  partial  fulfillment 
of  the  requirements  for  the  degree 

of 
Bachelor  of  Soienoe 


University  of  California 
College  of  Agriculture 
Division  of  Agronomy 
May         1916 


UMVEKSHY  CFCA)  :: 

LIBRARY 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 
DAVIS 


THE     LARGE     SEED     FACTOR 

I  B 
CROP     PRODUCTION 


A  THESIS 


BY 


Lowrie  Baird  Nevin 


Presented  in  partial  fulfillment 
of  the  requirements  for  the  degree 

of 
Bachelor  of  Scienoe 


University  of  California 
College  of  Agriculture 
Division  of  Agronomy 
May         1916 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TA;,;! 

LIBRARY 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 
DAVIS 


CONTESTS 

Introduction 2 

• 

The  Influence  of  Large  Seed  upon  the  Yield 3 

Effect  of  Large  Seed  upon  Germination 14 

The  Effect  of  the  Specific  Gravity  upon  the  Yield  ...  15 

Relation  of  Size  and  weight  of  Kernel  to  Composition.  .  18 

Mechanical  Aids  to  the  Selection  of  Seed 22 

Fanning  Mills 25 

PART  II. 

Experimental 28 

Conclusions 33 

References 35 

Figures 37 


-1- 


THE  LARGE  SEED  FACTOR  IB  CHOP  PRODUCTION. 
Introduction 

The  question  of  larger  yields  is  a  very  vital  one  with  the 
farmer  of  to-day.   In  many  oases  more  than  is  realized  "by  the 
farmers  themselves  do  the  profits  depend  upon  the  last  refine- 
ments in  efficient  production.   Therefore  any  factor  that  gives 
larger  returns  for  practically  the  same  effort  merits  attention. 
Such  a  factor  is  the  influence  of  large  heavy  seed  in  crop  pro- 
duction. 

In  opening  his  discussion  of  experiments  with  wheat  in  which 
some  of  the  advantages  of  large  plump  seed  were  demonstrated,  Dr. 
1.  A.  Cobb  (1)  remarks  that  any  effort  to  prove  the  lower  value 
of  small  seed  will  be  regarded  by  many  as  an  effort  to  kill  a 
dead  horse;  but  as  long  as  there  exist  among  us  advocates  of 
small  seed,  and  the  bulk  of  wheat  growers  use  poor  seed,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  harp  on  the  superior  value  of  large  seed. 

It  is  the  intent  of  this  paper  to  deal  principally  with 
the  large  seed  factor  as  applying  to  cereals,  especially  wheat; 
but  from  time  to  time  reference  is  made  to  experiments  with 
other  plants  to  show  that  the  principle  applies  not  alone  to 
the  cereals. 

There  has  been  no  attempt  to  make  an  exhaustive  survey 
of  the  field,  either  as  regards  the  literature  or  as  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject. 

The  one  definite  objective  of  the  experimental  part  of 
the  task  has  been  to  secure  some  experimental  ground  as  a 
basis  for  the  assumption  that  the  extra  development  of  the 
plants  from  large  seed  is  due  to  the  additional  supply  of 

endosperm  available  to  the  germinating  plantlet. 

-2- 


; 


' 

36160 
•  rf    , 


There  is  no  lack  of  literature  showing  that  this  is  the 
explanation  favored  by  many  tut  it  has  not  been  the  good 
fortune  of  the  writer  to  find  any  experiments  in  support 
of  the  theory,  logical  as  it  certainly  seems. 

The  subject  has  been  taken  up  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  influence  of  large  seed  upon  the  yield,  of  large  seed 
upon  germination,  of  the  specific  gravity  or  weight  upon 
the  yield,  and  the  relation  of  the  size  and  weight  of  the 
kernel  to  composition.   There  has  been  included  also  a 
short  discussion  of  some  of  the  available  mechanical  aids 
to  the  selection  of  large,  heavy  seed. 

The  Influence  of  Large  Seed  upon  the  Yield. 

Sanborn(2),  at  the  Utah  Experiment  Station,  reports  ex- 
periments to  ascertain  the  effect  of  using  seed  separated 
for  size.  He  used  five  grades:  large,  medium,  small,  or- 
dinary, and  shrivelled.  His  results  are  given  as  follows :- 

:  pounds  per  acre  yields:  Average 
Kind  of  seed.          :  :  4  years 

:1890  :  1891  : 1892  :  1893  :  bu.per  A. 

Large  88.5  72.5  111.0  >63.0  18.72 

Mediua  70.0  87.0  67.0  16.60 

Small  94.0  105.0  64.0  74.0  18.72 

Ordinary  84.0  95.0  87.0  29.5  16.42 

Shrivelled  42.0  78.0  31.0  11.25 

His  conclusion  that  very  little  if  any  advantage  is  to 
be  gained  by  separating  seed  wheat  and  planting  the  large 
kernels  is  of  questionable  value  on  account  of  the  irregu- 
larity of  the  results. 

Latta,  at  the  Indiana  Experiment  Station,  (3)  conducted 
experiments  in  which  wheat  was  cleaned  of  chaffy  seed  and 
impurities  and  separated  into  light  and  heavy  kernels  by 


means  of  a  fanning  mill.   The  experiments  were  continued 
for  three  years,  each  year  taking  seed  not  grown  from  seed 
so  selected.   The  results  showed  an  average  gain  for  large 
seed  of  two  and  one  half  bushels  per  acre. 

Georgeson,  at  the  Kansas  Experiment  Station,  has  done  con- 
siderable work  on  the  subject  and  we  find  the  results  of  his 
work  in  several  of  the  publications  of  that  station.   In 
Bulletin  No.  13  the  following  results  are  presented: 

Grade  of  seed  Yield  of  grain  per  A. 

Light  21.6  bu. 

Common  24.0  " 

He  avy  SO . 0  " 

These  tests,  he  says,  prove  "only  what  is  already 
well  known". 

He  later  seeded  plats  with  seed  of  different  weights 
per  bushel  and  one  of  seed  from  selected  heads.  The  grades 
were  as  follows: 

Light  seed         56  Ibs.  per  bu. 
Common  seed  62.5    62.5  " 
Heavy  seed         63   "   "   n 
The  seed  from  selected  heads. 

Each  year  seed  was  selected  from  wheat  not  grown  from  selec- 
ted seed.  The  average  results  from  three  years  trials  were 
as  follows: 

Grade  of  seed          Bu.  of  grain  per  acre. 

Light  25.19 

Common  26.57 

Heavy  27.07 

Select  (Average  for  two  years)        25.82 

In  Bulletin  So.  54  of  the  same  station  the  average  for 
six  years  shows  as  follows: 

Light  £8.48 

Medium  29.85 

Heavy  30.76 


The  results  of  eight  years'  experiments  recorded  in  Bulletin 
No.  54  of  the  same  station  are  similar. 

Of  oats  he  says  in  Bulletin  63,  n  light  inferior  seed 
is  certain  to  produce  less  than  seed  of  a  fair  quality,  "but 
"between  a  fair  quality  of  seed  oats  and  heavy  sifted  seed 

there  is  not  much  difference." nthe  average  for  seven 

years  is,  however,  in  favor  of  heavy  seed." 

In  1892-3  Eesprez  at  the  Experiment  Station  of  Capello 
(4)  experimented  with  seed  of  different  sizes  and  from  dif- 
ferent locations  in  the  spike,  with  results  as  follow: 

Kilograms 
1892      From      From        Dif. 

large     small      favor  Ige . 
Var.  Ho.  1.  5,726      4,799         927 

Early  ears,  middle 

Late  6,172      4,235       1,937 

Yar.  So .  2 . 

Early  ears,  middle        5,231      3,123       2,108 

Late  4,680      2,456       2,224 

Var.  Ho.  3. 

Early  ears,  middle        5,879      3,543       2,336 

1893 
Yar.  Ho.  1. 

Early  ears,  middle  5,835  5,796  66 

extremity  5,492  4,425  1,067 

Late       middle  5,869  4,347  1,522 

"         extremity  5,291  4,491  800 

Var.  Ho.  2. 

Barly  ears,  middle  5,i4E  5,035  107 

extremity  5,587  5,242  345 

Late        middle  6,330  4,543  1,787 

extremity  4,897  4,393  504 

Var.  Ho.  3. 

Early  ears,  middle  6,365  6,161  204 

The  seed  was  sown  in  drills  eight  inches  apart  and  eight 
inches  in  the  rows.   They  were  sown  with  large-seed  drills 
alternating  with  small-seed  drills.   The  author  draws  no 
conclusions. 

Two  years  later  (5)  he  reports  experiments  with  large 
kernels  selected  from  a  crop  grown  from  large  seed  for  three 
years  and  with  small  seed  grown  from  small  seed  for  several 
years.  Five  varieties  of  wheat  were  used.  The  average  re- 


- 

' 


. 


' 


, 


. 


>       '   f 

. 


. 


. 

. 


1 


6 

suits  for  three  years  were  a  difference  of  from  1,067  to 
1,828  kilograms  of  grain  per  hectare  in  favor  of  the  large 
seed.  But  the  difference  was  in  general  greater  the  first 
year  than  later.  The  use  of  large  seed  gave  a  crop  with 
kernels  larger  than  those  grown  from  small  seed. 

Middleton  (6)  reporting  experiments  with  wheat,  oats, 
and  beans,  says  the  large  seed  yielded  almost  twice  as  much 
as  small  seed,  in  the  case  of  wheat;  the  difference  was  less 
marked  with  oats  and  with  beans  there  was  scarcely  any. 

Bolley  (7),  of  north  Dakota!^,  after  experiments  lasting 
for  four  years  in  which  plump  kernels  of  large  size  and  plump 
kernels  of  small  size  were  selected  for  seed,  concludes  from 
the  results  that  "perfect  grains  of  large  size  and  greatest 
weight  produce  "better  plants  than  perfect  grains  of  smell 
size  and  light  weight,  even  when  the  grains  come  from  the 
same  head". 

After  presenting  data  of  fourteen  years'  experiments 
with  large,  mediuiu  and  small  seeds  of  oats,  barley,  field 
peas,  spring  and  winter  wheat,  mangels,  sugar  beets,  swedes, 
fall  turnips,  field  carrots,  rape,  and  potatoes  C.  A.  Zavitz(9) 
of  the  Ontario  Agricultural  College  concludes  that  "it 
seems  very  evident  that  large  seeds  will  give  a  greater 
yield  than  will  an  equal  number  of  small  seeds,  in  the  case 
of  at  least  twelve  different  classes  of  farm  crops." 

*?  i 

In  a  report  of  the  same  college  (8)  he  submits  the  follow- 
ing table: 


• 


- 


' 


Class 

Years 

seleo-  : 

bu. 

Average 

yield  per  A. 

test 

tion  : 

wt.   : 

tons 
straw 

:   bus. 
:  grain 

Spring  wheat 

8 

L.  plump  • 
S.  n 
Shrunken 

59.1 
58.3 
56.9 

1.4 
1.3 
1.2 

£1.7 

18.0 
16.7 

Winter  wheat 

6 

L.  plum: 
S.    " 
Shrunken 
Split 

59.4 
59.  £ 
59.1 
54.  £ 

£.6 
£.£ 
£.1 
.6 

46.9 
40.4 
39.1 
9.3 

Oats 

7 

L.  plump 
Medium 
Small 

33.  £ 
32.  £ 
31.8 

1.9 
1.8 
1.8 

6£.0 

54.1 
46.6 

Barley 

6 

L.  plump 
S.   n 
Shrunken 
Broken 

49.5 
48.8 
49.1 
48.6 

1.5 
1.5 
1.4 
1.3 

53.8 
50.4 
46.0 
42.  £ 

Peas 

6 

Large 
Small 

56.3 
56.3 

1.3 

1.1 

£8.1 
£3.0 

tr 

9 

Sound 
Split 

58.1 
59.7 

1.4 

.6 

£9.£ 
10.  £ 

P.  P.  Deherain  (10)  reports  a  slightly  "better  yield  of 
wheat  from  large  seed  and  he  and  Dupont  (11)  are  cited  as 
reporting  yields  from  large  and  small  kernels  of  a  number 
of  varieties  of  wheat  to  have  been  in  all  oases  in  favor 
of  the  large  kernels,  "but  a  large  difference  in  yield  was 
obtained  only  when  there  was  a  marked  difference  in  the  weight 
of  the  kernels. 

Soule  and  Vanatter  (1£)  of  the  Tennessee  Experiment 
Station  conducted  experiments  for  three  years  in  which 
large  and  small  wheat  kernels  were  separated  by  means  of  selves, 
after  the  first  year  each  grade  being  selected  from  wheat 
grown  from  a  similar  grade.  A  check  plot  of  unseleeted 
seed  was  planted. 

"The  average  difference  in  yield  at  the  end  of  three 
years  between  large  grains  (689  per  ounce),  and  small  grains 


' 
' 

' 

- 

• 
J-et  '  •  '  •         • 

- 

' 
' 


6 


(888  per  ounce)  with  Mediterranean  wheat,  was  2.06  bushels 
in  favor  of  large  grains  as  compared  with  the  commercial 
sample,  aad  5.18  bushels  in  favor  of  large  grains  over 
small  grains.   The  difference  in  yield  between  the  large 
grains  and  the  commercial  sample  chiefly  occurred  the  first 
year;  but  it  is  possible,  though  hardly  probable,  that  the 
difference  was  partly  due  to  variation  in  the  soil.  The 
experiment  has  been  carried  out  in  different  parts  of  the 
field  for  the  last  two  year4  and  the  difference  in  the  yield 
is  now  only  0.32  in  favor  of  the  large  grains." 

Cobb  (13)  gives  a  summary  of  the  comparisons  of  the  re- 
sults of  some  very  carefully  conducted  experiments  to  deter- 
mine the  relative  advantages  of  large  seed  and  small  seed 
of  wheat.  He  used  sieves  with  rectangular  openings  of  meas- 
ured width  which  give  a  fairly  accurate  grading  on  the  basis 
of  diameter  of  kernel.  Three  grades  are  cited  in  the  summary: 
very  large,  large,  and  medium  which  were  respectively  3.25, 
£.00  and  2.50  millimeters  in  diameter. 

If  the  comparison  is  made  on  the  basis  of  yield  of  grain 
and  straw,  the  following  is  a  general  statement  of  the  results; 

The  very  large  or  3.25  grade  excelled  in  66.7$  of  the  ttials. 
"  3.00  89.7$  n  "     " 

medium  n  2.50  98.1$  "  "     " 

•»       •*    •» 

This  statement  fails  to  tell  the  whole  story  for  the 
reason  that  the  excess  of  yield  in  the  majority  oases  is 
greater  than  in  the  minority  cases.   Thus — 

Grade           When  excelling  did  When  excelled 

so  by  per  cent  was  only  by  — $ 

Very  large  or  3.25         14.7  8.5 

Large  or  3.00              30.4  12.3 

Medium  or  2.50            44.5  3.5 

In  these  statements  the  basis  of  the  percentage  cal- 
culations is  the  weight  of  the  lower  of  the  two  constants. 


9 

If  instead  of  taking  the  sum  of  the  weights  of  grain  and 
straw  as  the  criterion  of  yield,  we  take  the  weight  of  the 
grain  alone,  we  arrive  at  the  following: — 

The  very  large  or  5.25  grade  excelled  in  58.3  %  of  the  trials. 

large     "  2.00   n      "     n  93.1  "  "   "     n 
n   medium    "  2,50   "      "     "  86. E  "  "  "     " 

As  before,  we  find,  however,  that  the  victories  of  the 
large  seed  are  more  decisive  than  those  of  the  small  seed, 
and  this  must  be  taken  into  account  in  estimating  the  superior- 
ity of  the  larger  grades.  We  find  that: — 

Grade  Excelling  by  Excelled  by 
3.25                   12.9  <  6.6  % 

3.00  26.5  %  7.0  % 

2.50  40.5  %  3.3  $ 

If  instead  of  taking  the  sum  of  the  weights  of  grain 
and  straw  as  the  criterion  of  yield  we  take  the  yield  of  the 
strew  alone,  we  arrive  at  the  following: — 

The  very  large  or  3.25  grade  excelled  in  66.7  %  of  the  trials. 
large     "  3.00  89.7  %  "  "    n 

medium    "  2.60   "      "      «  93.1  %  *  n    " 

But  again  we  find  that  the  victories  of  the  large  grades 
are  much  more  decisive  than  those  of  the  small  grades,  and  this 
must  not  be  forgotten  ie  estimating  the  superiority  of  the 
larger  grades.  Examination  of  the  table  proves  that:-- 

Grade  $  excelling  by       %  excelled  by 

when  excelling.       when  excelled. 

3.25  19, B  10.8 

3.00  29.6  19.4 

2.50  40.7  4.5 

The  above  trials  include  some  twenty-nine  varieties  of 
wheat.  Also,  the  comparisons  have  been  made  on  the  basis 
of  equal  numbers  of  seed  and  not  between  equal  bulks  or 
equal  weights. 

Grenfell  (14)  selected  plump  and  shrivelled  kernels 
from  the  same  bulk  of  grain.   They  were  sown  with  the  plump 


-    : 


. 


. 
. 
. 


<rf 


10 

and  shrivelled  kernels  in  alternate  rows.  The  germination 
appeared  much  the  same  but  the  plants  in  the  rows  sowed  from 
plump  grain  soon  began  to  gain  on  the  others  and  kept  ahead 
for  the  remainder  of  the  season.   The  tillering  was  better 
in  the  plump  grain.   The  average  of  the  plants  that  grew  was 
92.7  %  for  the  plump  and  88.5$  for  the  shrivelled:  the  plump 
produced  and  average  of  180  heads  from  each  row  which  origin- 
ally was  planted  with  150  seeds,  giving  a  tillering  power  of 
1.J5E.   The  tillering  power  of  the  shrivelled  seed  was  1.23 
and  the  yield  per  acre  in  bushels  was  9.8  for  the  plump  and 
7.5  for  the  shrivelled. 

Von  Liebenberg  (15)  working  with  red  clover  fount  that 
the  smaller  the  seed  the  less  favorable  the  result. 

P.  de  Caluwe  (16)  working  with  oats  to  ascertain  the 
effect  of  different  sizes  of  seed  reports  that  very  large, 
large,  ordinary,  small  and  very  small  grains  of  oats  were 
sown;  all  at  the  rate  of  111  pounds  per  acre.   The  yields  of 
grain  were  slightly  in  favor  of  the  small  and  ordinary  seed. 
The  result  was  attributed  to  the  greater  number  of  grains 
sown  per  plat  with  the  smaller  classes  of  seed.   The  author 
considers  it  advisable  to  employ  a  greater  weight  of  large 
than  of  small  seed. 

In  a  test  of  whole  and  cut  tubers  of  potatoes  the  same  author 
(17)  says  that  the  largest  yield,  after  deduction  of  the  seed 
potatoes  planted,  was  afforded  by  the  large  whole  tubers, 
and  the  next  largest  yield  by  the  medium  sized  whole  potatoes. 

The  yield  of  large  and  small  seed  of  wheat  is  reported 
by  Despres  (18)  as  being  the  greatest  from  large  seed  except 
in  two  cases  where  there  was  a  larger  yield  of  straw  for  the 


• 

•  » 

' 

•    • 

. 

• 


' 

• 

.    • 
' 

• 

• 

. 

• 

' 


11 

small  seed. 

By  growing  selected  lots  of  large  and  small  radish  seed., 
Mr.  B.  T.  Galloway (19)  found  that  the  large  seeds  germinated 
more  quickly  and  with  more  certainty  and  produced  marketable 
crops  sooner  and  more  uniformly  than  the  small  seeds.   The  lat- 
ter, however,  gave  proportionally  larger  plants.   He  submits 
the  suggestion  that  the  radish  has  "been  cultivated  for  the  root 
and  selection  has  been  made  continually  with  the  development 
of  the  root  in  view  without  attention  to  the  seed  and  says 
that  if  more  nutrition  is  utilized  in  root  development  with 
plants  of  equal  vigor,  less  would  probably  remain  for  seed 
development,  resulting  naturally  in  small  seed. 

The  reasoning  in  this  case,  however,  does  not  appeal  to 
the  writer  of  this  thesis  as  it  would  seem  that  the  very  fact 
of  a  large  uvuolus  being  present  would  result  in  better  seed 
if  the  conception  of  its  function  as  a  storage  organ  for  the 
production  of  seed  is  correct.  Rather  the  answer  must  be 
looked  for  in  some  natural  tendency  if  it  should  always  prove 
to  be  the  case  that  large  seed  gives  small  root  development. 
It  is  not  at  all  uncommon  to  find  that  some  undesirable  quality 
is  emphasized  Just  as  rapidly  as  the  desired  one  when  selection 
is  practiced  in  animal  breeding,  and  selection  for  root  alone 
might  result  in  small  seed  merely  according  to  the  chances 
in  selection. 

In  experiments  with  wheat,  barley,  oats  and  sugar  beets 
Lubanski  (20)  reports  that  the  results  show  the  influence 
on  yield  and  to  some  extent  on  quality  of  crop  was  in  favor 
of  large  seed. 

According  to  the  Ontario  Agricultural  College  experi- 
ments (21)  with  wheat,  oats  and  barley  during  a  five  to  eight 


' 


• 

, 


12 

year  period  show  that  the  average  yield  of  grain  and  straw 
and  the  weights  per  measured  "bushel  were  in  favor  of  large 
plump  seed  as  against  either  medium  size  or  small  seed. 

7/ith  oats  the  Aberdeen  and  lorth  of  Scotland  Agricul- 
tural College  (22}  found  that  when  equal  "bulks  of  small  and 
large  seed  were  planted  the  "results  were  slightly  in  favor 
of  the  small  seed*.   The  two  lots  of  seed  were  selected 
from  the  same  field.  . 

The  \Vest  of  Scotland  Agricultural  College  (23)  reports 
a  series  of  experiments  with  oats  in  which  the  oats  were  di- 
vidAd  into  (a)  singles,  or  kernels  that  hear  rudiments  that 
might  have  developed  into  "bosom  oats,  ("b)  and  firsts,  or 
oats  in  which  the  rudiments  did  so  develop.   The  small  seeds 
are  made  up  of  seconds  or  "bosom  oats  broken  from  the  firsts. 
The  firsts  produced  heavier  yields  of  straw  and  grain  than 
either  the  seconds  or  the  singles.   The  seconds  produce^  more 
straw  and  less  grain  per  acre  than  the  singles.   The  differences 
reported  range  from  twenty- three  to  thirty- six  per  cent  in 
terms  of  the  weights  yeilded  hy  the  singles. 

The  Vermont  Station  (24)  reports  the  influence  of  size 

of  seed  in  golden  wax  "beans  as  follows:  — 

Season  1910  (green  weights) 

Size      "So.    T7t.      UQ.     Wt.  Av.  wt.  pods 

seed     used    Seed    plants  green  per  plant 

grams          pods  grams. 

lagge        500    312      426   5,894  12.8 

Uedium       500    252      429   4,762  11.1 

Small        500    169      370   3,629  9.8 

Air  dry  weights 

Size      I>ry     Total    Tfo.      ITo  pods    Ho.  Wt. 

seed      wt.     Ro.   empty     w.  1  or     of  "beans 

pods.    pods    pods   more  "beans  "beans  grams 

Large  1,899  2,545  1,580  965  2,503  964 
Medium  1,389  2.032  1,390  642  1,578  624 
Small  709  1,211  694  517  1,445  567 


13 


The  same  station  shows  the  following  results  with  sweet 
pumpkins:-- 


Size    lb.     *o.   total  No.  pounds 

seed   vines  fruits  wt.   ripe  ripe 

rbs  fruits  fruit 

Large   76     212  1,034  133  696 

Small   76     256  1,247   68  386 


Fo.  fruitsTTt. 

fruits  unripe 

unripe  fruit 

80  388 

188  361 


This  shows  that  the  plants  from  large  seed  (76  vines) 
yielded  sixty- five  more  ripe  fruits  and  three  hundred  and 
ten  more  pounds  of  editle  product. 

Fron  the  same  station  we  have  an  interesting  tabulation 
of  results  with  sweet  peas. 


Siae 

"Kb. 

Tit.  seed 

Total  Ho.   Total  Ho. 

Average  Ho. 

seed 

sown 

grams 

plants   "blossoms 

"blossoms 

per  plant  . 

Duke  of  "'estminster 

Large 

50' 

4.58 

45      11,831 

263 

Lledium 

50 

3.70 

40      10,069 

E52 

Small 

50 

2_..74 

40       8,240 

206 

Earliest  of  All 

Large 

50 

6.25 

40       3,496 

87 

Iledium 

50 

4.11 

33       2,932 

89 

Small 

50 

2.51 

16         567 

35 

Her  Llajesty 

Lex** 

50 

4.50 

34      12,244 

360 

Medina 

50 

3.19 

35      10,585 

321 

Small 

50 

S.45 

18       3,702 

206 

Cocclnia 

Large 

50 

5.13 

40      16,226 

407 

Medium 

50 

3.07 

40      13,578 

339 

Small 

50 

4.22 

46      14,673 

£19 

Agnee  Eckford 

Large 

30 

3.13 

.   25       1,701 

68 

LlecJiua 

30 

2.51 

24       2,199 

89 

Small 

30 

1.87 

25       2,145 

32 

Apple  Blossom 

Large 

50 

5.40 

39      11,678 

315 

Medium 

50 

3.78 

29      10,443 

266 

Small 

50 

2.65 

38       9,592 

273 

They  conclude  that  large  seed  is  heavier,  germinates 
"better,  seems  more  likely  to  produce  strong  plants,  and 
more  important,  yields  a  larger  number  of  "blossoms.  Also 


. 


I 

. 


, 
- 


14 

their  results  with.  Hubbard  squash  indicate  that  while  the 
seeds  do  not  vary  as  widely  as  those  of  some  other  plants, 
large  seed  gave  more  pounds  and  more  numbers  of  edible  squash- 
Let  tuoe  responded  very  uniformly,  the  larger  seed  giv- 
ing heavier  heads  and  more  salable  ones. 

Effect  of  Large  Seed  on  Germination. 

Kerpelley  (25)  found  that  the  growth  of  plants  from  large 
and  fully  developed  wheat  kernels  was  more  uniform  and  vig- 
orous and  produced  the  largest  number  of  seeds  capable  of 
germinating. 

A. J.J.  Vandevelde  (26)  reports  on  the  germination  of 
1800  each  of  large,  average  and  small  seeds  of  peas,  oats, 
rye,  wheat  and  barley.  He  states  that  the  time  required  for 
germination  is  longer  for  the  large  seed  but  only  slightly 
so.   Total  germinations  were  greater  with  small  in  every 
case  except  barley. 

Cobb  (27)  Gives  as  an  average  of  experiments  with 
twenty  eight  varieties  of  wheat  these  figures.   Out  of 
two  hundred  seeds  each,  large  seed  showed  12.5  failures, 
medium  seed  18.6  and  small  seed  34.1  failures.   This  gives 
almost  three  times  as  many  failures  in  small  as  in  large. 

Eiseninenger  (28)  found  in  experiments  with  spruce  and 
Scotch  and  Austrian  pine  that  large  seeds  germinated  quicker 
and  reached  the  period  of  maximum  germination  earlier  than 
small  seeds. 

In  certain  experiments  by  !..  Slegrell  (29)  the  author 
points  out  the  fact  that  with  one  exception  the  period  re- 
quired for  germination  increased  with  the  specific  gravity. 
A  comparison  of  germination  by  the  heavier  and  lighter 
kernels  in  the  same  head  is  given  "by  the  Kansas  State  Agri- 


16 

cultural  College:  (30) 

Ho.  kernels    Ho.  kernels     per  cent 
Grade  tested      germinated      germination 

Heavier  than  the  average  4,707        4,684  98.74 

Lighter  2.972         2.877  96.80 

Total  7.679         7,561  97.99 

Separation  into  five  sizes  by  sieves  showed;  — There  is 
a  slight  "but  not  constant  difference  "between  the  germination 
of  kernels  separated  "by  sieves.  (2)  The  largest  kernels  do 
not  always  germinate  the  "best.   (3)  The  smallest  kernels 
usually  but  not  always  germinate  the  poorest. 

Separation  according  to  density  by  means  of  a  wind 
blast  gave  the  following  results; 

Grade  Average  % 

germination 

1  99.19 

2  98.00 
8  95.16 

4  87.63 

5  71.70 

6  53.95 


The  Effect  of  the  Specific  Gravity 
Upon  the  Yield. 

A 

Pommel  and  Stewart  at  the  Iowa  Experiment  Station  (31) 
report  that  of  thirty-seven  samples  examined  the  average 
specific  gravity  of  the  seed  of  wheat  was  1.469,  the  amount 
varying  between  1.503  and  1.407.   Their  method  was  to  first 
weigh  the  seed  in  air  and  again  while  immersed  in  Kerosene 
oil.   That  this  does  not  represent  the  range  of  the  specific 
gravities  of  the  wheat  kernel  is  readily  seen  from  the  suc- 
ceeding reference. 

"Seed  wheat  of  four  varieties  was  separated  by  Church  (32) 
by  means  of  solutions  of  calcium  chloride  having  specific 

gravities  of  1.247,  1.293,  and  1.31.   The  seed  was  first 


treated  with  a  solution  of  mercuric  chloride  to  remove  the 
adherent  air.  Each  lot  of  seed  was  planted  separately.  From 
the  results  the  following  oonolusions  are  drawn: — 

1.  The  seed  wheat  of  the  greatest  density  produced  the 
densest  seed. 

2.  The  seed  wheat  of  the  greatest  density  yielded  the 
largest  amount  of  dressed  grain. 

3.  The  seed  of  medium  density  generally  gave  the  largest 
number  of  ears,  but  the  ears  were  poorer  than  those  from  the 
densest  seed. 

4.  Seed  of  medium  density  generally  produced  the  largest 
number  of  fruiting  plants. 

5.  The  seed  wheat  that  sank  in  water,  but  floated  in  a 
solution  having  the  density  1.247,  was  of  very  low  value,  yield 
ing  on  an  average  only  34.4  pounds  of  dressed  grain  for  every 
100  yielded  "by  the  densest  seed." 

Working  with  soy  beans  Hicks  and  Pabney  (33)  found  that 
the  plants  and  roots  were  heavier  from  heavy  seed  and  the  same 
was  true  with  Alaska  peas  with  the  additional  advantage  of 
earliness.  Earliness  also  developed  with  radish  and  Kafir 
corn  from  heavy  seed.   Also,  with  barley,  oats,  and  rye  the 
weights  of  the  seedlings  were  closely  proportional  to  the 
weights  of  the  seed. 

Yon  Llebenberg  (34)  says  that  the  results  of  the  ex- 
periments with  Hanna  barley  grown  in  five  different  places 
"corroborate  those  of  other  experiments  and  it  can  he  safe- 
ly stated  that  with  a  heavy  weight  per  "bushel  go  a  greater 
weight  per  kernel,  a  smaller  percent  of  husk,  and  a  richer 
content  of  extract,  and  finally  a  greater  yield." 

The  North  Bakotah  Station,  (35)  from  a  four  years' 


- 

' 


.  -.  . , 


' 


- 


•;•- 


heavy  seed   : 

light  seed 

:   riff,    favor  hee^ 

29.4 
27.9 
27.1 
38.6 

24.3 
22.8 
25.2 
33.7 

4.6 
5.1 
1.9 
4.9 

17 

test,  concludes  that  perfect  grains  of  large  size  and  high 
weight  produce  better  plants  than  those  of  smaller  size 
and  weight  even  though  the  grains  come  from  the  same  spike. 

The  Burdue  University  Experiment  Station  submits  a 
summary  of  results  taken  from  a  number  of  stations  thus:  (36) 

Yields  in  bu.  per  acre 

Stations 

Minnesota 
Nebraska 
Kansas 
Ontario 

Averages      30.7        26.6  4.1 

Large  seed  :   Small  seed  :  riff,  fav.  Lge 
Indiana                30.5        27.9  2.6 

'Ohio  16.3        16.3 

Ontario  46.9        40.4  6.5 

Tennessee  28.6         23.4  5.2 

Averages      30.6        27.0  3.6 

The  figures  from  experiments  by  Burnett  at  the  Iowa  (37) 
Station  tend  to  show  that  with  oats  the  heavy  seed  and  the 
light  seed  were  about  equal  pound  for  pound  but  not  seed 
for  seed,  nor  measure  for  measure.  All  plots  were  sown  at 
the  rate  of  three  bushels  per  acre. 

The  Minnesota  Station  (38)  state  that  a  plump  heavy 
kernel  of  grain  will  produce  a  stronger  plant  and  nourish 
it  better  than  will  a  shrunken,  light  $ernel.   They  quote 

from  the  Nebraska  station  the  following  table: 

Yield  per  acre  in  bushels 

Kind  of  seed  1900       1901     2  yr.  av. 

Heavy  29.5       29.3      29.4 

Light  23.0       26.7      24.8 

Gain  in  favor  of  heavy  seed  4.6 

A  similar  experiment  in  their  own  station  gave  an  in- 
crease of  9-fc  bushels  per  acre  in  favor  of  the  heavy  seed  and 
heavy  wheat  gave  a  yield  of  36  per  cent  greater  than  that 
of  light  wheat. 


• 

: 


. 
. 

. 


. 
ft. 


. 
' 

. 


•    - 


18 

Lyon  (39)  cites  Tollny  as  objecting  to  experiments  by  a  number 
of  experimenters  with  various  cereals  in  which  almost  without 
exception  kernels  of  high  specific  gravity  produced  the  beet 
yields,  because  no  distinction  was  made  between  absolute 
wiight  and  specific  gravity  in  the  kernels.  He  claims  that 
the  value  of  the  seeds  lies  in  the  kernels  of  absolute 
heavy  weight  rather  than  in  kernels  of  high  specific  gravity, 
concluding  that  the  specific  gravity  of  the  seed  exerts  no 
influence  on  the  yield.   Lyon  goes  on  to  say  that  in  the  light 
of  the  experiments  that  have  been  conducted  it  would  seem 
that  there  is  a  difference  between  seed  of  low  specific  grav- 
ity and  high  specific  gravity  in  favor  of  the  dense  seed,  but 
there  is  little  difference  between  seed  of  high  and  medium 
specific  gravity. 

Relation  of  Size  and  height  of  Kernel 
to  Composition. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  thesis  to  enter  far 
into  this  phase  of  the  large  seed  factor.   Therefore  only 
brief  reference  will  be  made. 

Lyon  (40)  concludes  that  in  general  it  may  be  said  that 
as  between  wheat  kernels  of  the  same  variety  grown  in  the 
same  season  and  upon  the  same  soil,  the  specific  gravity  is 
inversely  proportional  to  the  nitrogen  content.   This  conclu- 
sion is  given  after  citing  several  experimenters  who  pre- 
sent varying  results.  He  suggests  that  as  the  ash,  which 
varies  so  considerably  with  the  soil  on  which  the  wheat  is 
grown,  has  such  a  high  specific  gravity  compared  to  that  of 
the  other  constituents  this  would  prevent  the  establishment 
of  a  constant  relation.   H« further  suggests  that  the  number 

and  size  of  vacuoles  would  affect  the  specific  gravity. 


, 

T&*  '  '       ' 


- 

'       ' 
' 

,    ' 

r&' 


- 


19 

Comparing  oata  Hienrich  (41)  Oonsidered  that  lie  had 
found  very  little  difference  in  feeding  value  between  oats 
of  heavy  and  light  weight.   In  general  the  lighter  grains 
had  more  fibre  and  less  carbohydrates. 

Johannsen  (42)  found  great  variation  in  the  nitrogen 
content  of  fully  developed  ripe  barley  grains  from  different 
heads  of  the  same  variety  of  barley  grown  under  like  con- 
ditions. Ho  definite  law  relative  to  this  variation  was 
found  but  in  general  the  nitrogen  content  increased  with 
the  weight  of  the  kernels.  By  careful  selection,  for  four 
years,  a  strain  of  barley  was  found  which  yielded  heavy 

grains  low  in  nitrogen.  A  later  and  fuller  table  may  be 
found  in  the  Experiment  Station  Record,  Vol  XII  page  236. 

Snyder  (43)  submits  results  to  show  that  light-weight 
kernels  contain  a  somewhat  larger  percent  of  nitrogen, 
phosphoric  acid  and  potash  than  the  heavy  seed  but  the  total 
amount  of  these  is  much  less. 

Sperling  (44)  was  unable  to  correlate  weight  in  barley 
seed  with  protein  content. 

Shaw  (45)  working  with  California  white  wheats,  con- 
cludes that  the  normal  kernels  usually  carry  a  larger  per 
cent  of  nitrogen  than  smaller  kernels  of  the  same  type. 

It  is  important  to  have  a  good  start  because  three 
fourths  of  the  total  mineral  matter  is  taken  from  the  soil 
in  the  first  fifty  days  (46)  . 

The  Minnesota  Station  presents  a  table  of  the  composition 
of  the  ash  of  heavy  and  light  weight  wheat  kernels.  Under 
the  head  of  total  ash  in  the  wheat  is  given  the  number  of 
pounds  of  ash  in  every  hundred  pounds  of  wheat.   The  figures 
given  for  the  potash,  lime,  etc.  are  the  per  cents  of  those 


' 


- 

.  '•-  • 

' 

. 

a«w  ; 

fw 

- 

10 

• 

• 

3* J«fll 


substances  found  by  the  analysis  of  each  ash.   This  wheat 
was  all  grown  from  one  lot  of  seed  in  different  parts  of  Min- 
nesota.  (47) 

Eote  that  the  heavy  seed  has  more  potash  and  phosphoric 
acid. 

Composition  of  the  Ash  of  Heavy  and  light  Weight  Wheat. 


No   B"- 
ujt 

Jalo.1 
ask 

Pdajtl- 

Joda. 

Lime 

• 
Maguey  a-  Iron 

"t 
Phafi*5  silic*.  £k 

Chlor-  Carbon 
ide.3  dioxid<L 

I   65 

2.00 

30.44 

.50 

3.12 

12.10 

.41 

50.83 

.76!  .11 

m 

a.  so 

£   65 

1.91 

32.46 

.67 

2.  55 

12.39 

.27 

50.76 

.37    .06 

.11 

3   64 

2.02 

31.85 

.86  3.16 

12.54 

.38 

50.95 

.09  --- 

.04      .11 

4 

63 

2.07 

30.45 

.06   3.00 

12.10 

.34 

50.95 

.24 

.10 

.10   1.64 

5     63 

1.94 

31.29 

.09   3.89 

IE.  54 

.29 

50.60 

.26    .07 

.10   

6 

62 

2.04 

31.16 

.62 

3.16 

12.62 

.34 

48.86 

.35 

.06 

.11 

1.96 

7 

61 

1.92 

30.02 

.74  3.06 

13.17 

.62 

48.04 

.39    .09 

.09   2.12 

8 

60 

2.10 

30.16 

.26   3.02 

12.86 

.44 

48.10 

.27    .71 

.07   2.86 

9   59 

2,08 

29.01 

.89  3.91 

13.48 

1.16 

45.18   1.12    .16 

.14  2.99 

10,58 

2.16 

28.86 

1.45  3.86 

14.90 

1.33 

44.17   1.35 

.10 

.13  

11 

57 

£.05 

28.41 

.79   4.81 

15.30 

.81 

43.52 

1.67 

.11 

.47  3.04 

12 

55 

2.09 

28.77 

.88 

4.52 

14.48 

.86 

43.07 

1.92 

.12 

.42 

3.02 

In  Minnesota  Snyder  (48)  has  divided  small  kernels  of 
wheat  into  two  classes;  those  small  because  shrunken,  and 
those  well  filled  though  small.  As  "between  small,  shrunken 
kernels  and  those  large  end  well  filled  he  finds  that  the 
former  contain  the  higher  per  cent  of  nitrogen.  But  be- 
tween small  well  filled  and  large  well  filled  kernels 
the  latter  contain  the  higher  per  cent  of  nitrogen. 

A  balancing  of  the  foregoing  results  and  opinions 
seems  to  leave  little  room  for  the  contention  that  there  is 
no  advantage  in  large  seed.   Conceding  this,  we  come  to  the 
question  as  to  the  reason  for  the  superiority  of  large  heavy 
seed. 

Endeavoring  to  answer  this  several  writers  make  certain 
statements  as  if  the  reasons  given  were  established  but  none 
submit  experimental  proof.   The  reason  given  is  that  it  is 
on  account  of  the  larger  supply  of  nutrients  for  the  young  pla.n1. 


. 


21 


This  is  advanced  by  Shaw  when  he  says  (49)  that  the  main 
reason  for  the  difference  is  physiological,  and  lies  in  the 
greater  reserve  supply  in  the  larger  seed.   It  has  been  shown, 
he  goes  on  to  say,  that  heavier  seeds  possess  more  of  the  im- 
portant plant  foods  (phosphoric  acid,  nitrogen  and  potash  (50)  ) 
Continuing,  he  says  that  there  is  abundant  material  immediately 
available  to  the  plantlet  and  the  young  plant  is  soon  in  a  po- 
sition to  take  a  vigorous  hold  upon  the  soil* 

Blanohard,  (51)  gives  the  same  reason  and  goes  on  to  say 
that  this  is  a  fact  well  understood  by  all  who  are  endeavoring 
to  improve  their  crops  by  careful  and  practical  selection  of 


seed. 

In  connection  with  the  sub- 
ject of  effect  of  inheritance  in 
the  case  of  wheat  a  cut,  herewith 
reproduced,  in  Seed  Wheat  by  Cobb 
(52)  shows  the  variation  in  the 
size  of  kernels  in  the  same  spike. 

Lyon  (53)  quotes  BUnker  who  gave 
the  weights  of  individual  grains  of 
a  spike  which  was  presented  as  be- 
ing an  average  head;  the  figures 
show  kernels  varying  from  36  to  71 
milligrams.   This  cut  from  Cobb's 
work  bears  out  the  observation  of 
others  that  the  heaviest  grains  in  a 
spike  are  found  in  the  lower  middle 
part. 

A  suggestion  comes  from  the 


*houn   r 

- 

d  with  lii 

i'OllJd         I* 

"ii   the  •.  . 

tainty  nf  in.  : 
ng- 

r  tin-   I] 

A_:i  i,  tilhir.'  in  tin* 
•  1  dat.i  as  to 
varieties  of  wheat 
'I'll.-  record  i.r  his 
Anniiji]  Ufpurt  of 
:-li"\is  tli.it  rln- 

!<•    \n\],,\\ 

l/White  i,;«m 

_>portuD 
traveuin 

I>artsof  the  State 
fects,  and  the  infor- 

that  the  samples 
he  present  in.jini  v 
the  following,  und 
pie  Straw,  :,-2°/  • 
wedel,  14;—  Red 
%  ;  Blount'a  Lam- 


.  at  the  time  of  col- 
J  wheat  being  •"i\\n 
immas,  and  Strin- 
*e  of  Purple  Straw, 
e*e  varieties  either 
cause  they  can  get 
give  the  man 
pver  c-nni.-s  liandv. 
dismiss  this  latter 
on,    as    experivn.-f 
d  opinions,  and  ;iii- 
neglect   to   think 
>  make  a  living. 
rnatives,    namely, 
ties    because    thc'-v 
an  get  no  others, 
he  former.    Other 
"  within  the  reach 
'•  use  some   otlitT 
iimot  get   it,  nor 

This    Rt.-1'lns   tu   tin- 

the  farmers  must 
sey  Consider  them 
o  grow. 


Fig,  11.     \ 

Defiance      wheat, 
with     th, 
arranged    as    ei- 
tracted  from  one 

side  of  i'. 


•' 


22 

Kentucky  Experiment  Station  (54)  that  this  may  "be  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  the  florets  at  the  center  of  the  spike 
are  pollinated  first. 

Since  it  is  so  that  there  ia  such  a  variation  in  weight 
batr/een  kernels  of  the  same  spike  there  are  a  number  of  men 
who  consider  that  it  is  not  to  "be  expected  that  all  large  seed 
should  suppass  smaller  seed  because  the  small  seed  may  possess 
the  same  inheritance  as  the  large.   It  would  seem,  then,  that 
on  account  of  this  fact  the  smaller  seed  in  a  selection  fl>r 
size  and  weight  would  contain  a  larger  proportion  of  the  im- 
mature and  poorly  developed  seed  the  first  time  than  it  would 
the  second  after  the  weaker  plants  resulting  from  such  poor 
seed  would  have  been  eliminated.  The  second  and  succeeding 
seasons  selections  was  practiced  from  wheat  grown  from  seed 
so  selected  the  small  size  would  contain  a  larger  proportion 
of  seeds  which  are  naturally  small  and  this  is  pointed  out  by 
Lyon  (55)  with  the  observation  that  several  of  the  experiments 
cited  exactly  fulfil  these  conditions. 

Mechanical  Aids  to  Selection 
of  Seed. 

It  is  obvious  that  some  of  the  finer  methods  of  de- 
termining the  weights  of  seed  are  utterly  impractical  for 
use  on  the  farm.   Thus  far  there  seems  to  be  but  one  method 
of  selecting  for  weight  which  is  at  all  practical  for  the 
average  man  and  at  the  same  time  is  generally  understodd. 
This  is  the  air  blast  applied  in  some  form. 

There  are  various  devices  making  use  of  centrifugal 
force  or  of  the  ability  of  seed  to  bounce  from  taught  wires 
but  at  the  present  time  the  most  help  would  seem  to  lie 


- 


X1;' 


23 
in  some  type  of  fanning  mill. 

It  is  the  opinion  of  the  writer  of  this  thesis  that  no 
separation  of  seed  wheat  or  "barley  is  adequate  that  does  not 
select  for  size  as  well  as  weight. 

Herewith  are  presented  a  few  references  to  literature  on 
the  subject.   It  will  "be  noticed  here  also  that  there  is  a 
certain  amount  of  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  value  of 
such  selection  "but  it  may  "be  possible  that  other  factors  have 
affected  the  results  of  some  of  the  dissenters  or  that  their 
machines  have  not  "been  mechanically  what  they  should  have  been. 

Montgomery  (56)  found  that  the  use  of  a  fanning  mill  for 
separating  heavy  and  light  seed  wheat  did  not  result  in  im- 
provement in  either  the  yield  or  the  quality  of  the  grain. 
He  concludes  that;  as  every  wheat  plant  contains  both  heavy 
and  light  seed,  the  fanning  mill  will  give  about  the  same 
kind  of  wheat,  so  far  as  inheritance  is  concerned,  in  the 
light  as  In  the  heavy. 

The  Ohio  Station  (57)  pronounce  against  the  fanning  mill 
but  their  test  cannot  be  very  well  guarded  as  they  refer  to 
hand~sorted  tests  which  are  giving  results  in  favor  of  large 
seed. 

Experiments  in  Missouri  indicate  that,  while  the  differ- 
ence is  not  great,  the  large  seed  gives  the  best  yields.   The 
fact  is  also  pointed  out  that  more  seed  by  weight  should  be 
used  when  large  seed  is  planted.   In  these  tests  the  seed  was 
put  first  through  a  fanning  mill  and  then  through  a  grader, 
separations  being  made  .into  three  grades.   (59) 

Burlison  (60)  found  in  a  test  of  fanned  and  unfanned  seed 
vjheat  of  three  varieties  that  the  fanned  showed  an  advantage 
over  the  unfanned  of  1.455  bushels  per  acre  in  yield. 


- 


' 

• 

' 


24 

Kansas  Bulletin  33  gives  the  resuls  of  two  years'  trials  with 
fanned  and  unf aimed  seed  as  follows: —  (61) 

Yield  per  acre 

Bu.  grain        Tons  straw 

Heavy  seed  SI. 90  1.92 

Light  seed  30.03  1.62 

Common  seed  SI. 13  1.73 

The  seed  was  graded  with  a  clipper  fanning  mill.  The 
"common"  was  wheat  as  it  came  from  the  thresher  "but  cleaned 
of  trash.   It  weighed  62^  pounds  per  bushel.  The  heavy  seed 
weighed  64fc  pounds,  and  the  light  weighed  60  7/8  pounds  per 
"bushel. 

The  statement  of  Montgomery  above  should  be  taken  in  the 
light  of  the  statement  of  page  22  of  the  same  bulletin  that 
the  first  two  years  the  lightest  seed  produced  least,  the  ordin- 
ary was  nezt,  and  heavy  seed  yielded  the  best.  Since  then  the 
results  have  varied  from  year  to  year  and  the  average  for  the 
eight  years  does  not  show  a  marked  advantage  for  either. 


-• 


25 


Fanning  Mills. 

Since  a  bushel  of  wheat  contains  somewhere  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  a  million  kernels,  it  is  obvious  that  hand  selection 
of  seed  wheat  is  impractical  except  for  careful  experimen- 
tal purposes. 

For  commercial  production  of  small  grains  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  some  means  of  selection  which  is  of  rather  high 
efficiency  and,  according  to  the  results  noted  in  the  preceding 
pages,  there  should  be  good  returns  from  its  use.   The  type 
of  machine  commonly  employed  for  such  a  purpose  is  generally 
called  a  fanning  mill. 

The  functions  of  a  fanning  mill  (62)  are;  (1)  to  clean 
the  grain;  (2)  to  grade  the  grain;  and  (3)  to  separate  differ- 
ent kinds  of  grain. 

The  modern  mill  uses  several  physical  differences  for  the 
separation  of  grain;  among  them  being  difference  in  weight, 
difference  in  size,  and  difference  in  shape.  Also  the  rough- 
ness of  the  hull,  and  to  some  extent  the  location  of  the  heavy 
part  of  the  seed,  may  be  used.  But  in  this  connection  we  are 
concerned  chiefly  with  the  difference  in  size  and  density. 

Selection  for  different  sizes  may  be  made  by  the  use  of 
sieves  or  riddles  with  different  sizes  of  openings.   Since 
denser  seed  offers  less  surface  to  the  air,  an  air  current 
may  be  utilized  to  select  seed  for  weight. 

The  first  of  the  machines  used  for  cleaning  and  grading 
grain  made  use  of  the  air  blast  only  and  hence  the  term  fan- 
ning mill  has  come  to  be  applied  to  all  machines  of  this  type; 
although  the  best  of  them  combine  the  principles  of  sieves 
anfl  si-  blast. 


. 


• 
_ 

' 
. 

' 
. 


. 


, 


.    . 


26 

There  are  tvro  general  tyi.es  of  fanning  mills.   In  the  first 
the  air  is  directed  upon  the  grain  as  it  passes  over  the  sieves; 
and  in  the  second  the  air  "blast  is  independent  of  the  sieves  and 
riddles. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  older  type.   It  has  a  rather  larger 
capacity  for  the  amount  of  sieve  surface  provided  and  when  proper- 
ly handled  will  do  good  work.  A  diagram  of  a  mill  of  this  sort 
is  shown  in  figure  2.   The  latter  type,  however,  has  the  great- 
er refinement  and  is  capable  of  more  careful  selections.  Diagrams 
of  machines  of  this  type  are  presented  in  Figs.  3  and  4. 

From  a  Minnesota  Bulletin  we  get  a  diagram  that  is  quite 
helpful  to  the  understanding  of  some  of  the  arrangements  of  a 
mill  of  this  sort.  See  Fig.  5.  (63) 

Figure  G.  (64)  shows  an  arrangement  where  selection  is  be- 
ing made  on  the  "basis  of  density  alone.   This  would  also  blow 
out  a  great  deal  of  the  trash  and  dust. 

Other  machines  are  designed  to  make  selection  merely  on 
the  basis  of  size.  Herewith  are  presented  three  cuts  to  illus- 
trate one  means  of  sorting  for  size  which  should  be  capable  of 
considerable  refinement.   In  any  mill  of  this  kind  the  efficiency 
of  selection  decreases  with  the  increase  in  amount  of  grain 
put  through  per  hour.   These  are  taken  from  Cobb's  work  (65) 
and  are  presented  to  show  first  (Fig.  7)  the  simple  principle 
on  which  they  work  and  are  kept  clean.  Here  note  the  brush 
for  keeping  the  meshes  cleared  of  grains  which  are  Just  large 
enough  to  wedge  slightly  without  going  through.   It  seems  to  the 
writer  that  considerable  efficiency  must  be  lost  by  some  of  the 
commercial  machines  in  this  manner. 

Fig.  8  shows  a  more  elaborate  mill  which  makes  selection 
of  several  sizes  and  blows  out  dust  and  chaff. 


27 

The  apparatus  shown  in  ?ig.  9.  is  interesting  on  account  of 
the  adjustability  of  the  meshes  tut  the  danger  of  "bending  the 
wires  out  of  shape  would  seem  to  lessen  its  probable  durability. 

* 

A  criticism  applying  to  the  three  last  machines  is  that  they 
make  use  only  of  size  in  selecting  seed  and  do  not  select  on 
the  basis  of  weight  as  well.   If  Wollny  (39)  is  right  in 
saying  that  the  advantage  of  large  seed  lies  in  absolute  weight 
rather  than  in  density,  the  very  way  to  secure  this  absolute  high 
weight  is  by  combining  selection  for  size  with  selection  for 
density. 


£8 

PART  II. 
EXPERIMENTAL 

If  there  Toe  much  truth  in  the  assumption  that  the  advan- 
tage of  large  seed  over  small  is  due  to  the  extra  start  given 
to  the  very  young  plantlet  "by  the  additional  endosperm,  it  would 
seem  that  removing  the  extra  endosperm  should  counteract  to 
some  extent  if  not  nullify  this  effect. 

Acting  upon  this  assumption,  experiments  were  undertaken  to 
determine  the  effect  of  so  removing  the  "balance  of  the  endo- 
sperm at  the  time  when  the  plant  becomes  able  to  support  it- 
self.  The  plan  was  to  allow  the  seed  to  germinate  and,  as  soon 
as  the  young  plant  became  able  to  draw  its  nourishment  from  the 
soil  and  air,  remove  the  balance  of  the  endosperm. 

Three  sets  of  plantings  were  made,  the  second  of  which  was 
lost  on  account  of  the  fact  that  wet  weather  kept  the  seeds 
submerged  until  they  failed  to  germinate  at  all.   The  plantings 
will  be  described  more  at  length  later. 

The  seed  for  these  plantings  was  prepared  with  considerable  care. 
Separations  were  made  first  by  size.   In  order  to  do  this  the  seed 
was  put  through  a  series  of  three  sieves  which  are  shown  in  Fig. 
1.   Sieve  llol  will  pass  a  grain  of  3-j  millimeters  in  diameter, 
3Jo.  2  will  pass  grains  of  2-J-  millimeters  and  Fo.  3  passes  all 
2-^  millimeters  or  less. 

In  this  manner  seed  was  separated  into  two  classes,  all 
not  falling  in  these  two. being  rejected  from  the  experiment. 
The  first  class,  which  will  hereafter  be  designated  as  large, 
consists  of  kernels  that  are  retained  by  the  3^  millimeter 
sieve.   The  seed  retained  by  the  2-jjf  millimeter  sieve  was  re- 
jected and  the  kernels  passed  by  it  but  retained  by  the  2-j 


29 

sieve  were  used  for  the  second  class,  which  will  "be  referred 
to  hereafter  as  small  seed. 

These  two  classes  of  seed  were  each  separated  further  into 
heavy  and  light  kernels  "by  means  of  solutions  of  sodium  nitrate. 
Seed  that  sank  in  a  solution  of  specific  gravity  1.35  but  floated 
in  a  solution  of  1.40  was  used  for  the  heavy,  and  those  kernels 
•which  floated  in  a  solution  of  specific  gravity  1.26  "but  sank 
in  one  of  1.20  were  classed  as  the  light.   In  this  manner  there 
were  four  grades  of  seed  obtained:  large  heavy,  large  light, 
small  heavy,  and  small  light. 

The  first  plantings  were  made  in  the  Agronomy  green  house 
at  Berkeley  and  ordinary  nursery  flats  were  used.   Soil  was  pre- 
pared "by  taking  surface  soil,  a  clay  adobe,  from  the  field  south 
of  Agriculture  Hall  and  mixing  it  with  about  equal  parts  of 
sane? .   The  seed  v.as  planted  at  a  depth  of  about  two  inches  in 
three  of  the  six  flats  used  and  at  a  depth  of  one  inch  in  the 
others.  Each  was  planted  with  all  of  the  claseee  of  seed  ar- 
ranged according  to  the  following  diagram  in  order  to  secure 
results  as  nearly  comparable  as  possible. 

aabcdad      a-5  large  heavy 

babcdbc      b  «  large  light 

cabcdcb      c  -  small  heavy 

dabcdda      d  =  small  light 

aabcdad 

babcdbc 

cabcdcb 

dabcdda 

The  endosperms  were  removed  two  weeks  later  but  by  that 
time  it  was  found  that  practically  ell  of  it  had  been  used  up 
by  the  plants  so  there  could  be  no  results  expected. 

But  the  effect  of  large  and  small  and  heavy  and  light 
seed  as  such  was  noted  in  the  following  data  taken  from  the 
experiment: 


so 

Large  Small 

Heavy        light    heavy       light 

Per  cent 

germination     77  62.5     64.5        33  1/2 

Average  height     24.9  eon.      22.4  Gnu  16.2  Cm.     12.0  ttm. 

The  second  set  of  plantings,  which  was  made  on  the  thirtieth 
and  thirty-first  of  December  of  the  same  year,  wes  the  most 
comprehensive  under  taken.  Fifty  seeds  each  of  the  four  classes 
were  planted  at  distances  of  four  inches  in  each  direction. 
They  were  planted  ten  seeds  in  a  row  and  five  rows  of  each. 
Around  the  whole  were  two  rows  planted  in  like  manner  and  at 
the  same  intervals  to  serve  for  guard  rows.  Hone  of  this  seed, 
sprouted.   The  seed  of  this  lot  were  placed  in  pockets  of  sand 
in  a  manner  similar  to  that  described  for  the  following  Bet. 

The  third  set  of  plantings,  was  made  February  twentieth  and 
twenty-first  at  the  University  Farm,  Davis;  Cal.  having  had  to 
wait  on  late  rains  until  the  soil  was  in  proper  condition.   Ow- 
ing to  the  slow  method  of  placing  the  seed,  which  is  described 
later,  all  could  not  be  planted  the  first  day  and  rain  the  next 
compelled  a  delay  of  about  a  week  before  the  last  could  be  plant- 
ed. Fortunately  this  amounted  to  only  the  guard  ro  on  either 
end  of  the  experiment,  or  rows  <)  and  14.   The  seed  was  planted 
according  to  the  following  plan.   Twelve  seed  were  planted  in 
a  row  at  intervals  of  four  inches  and  the  rows  were  planted 
four  inches  apart.   The  rows  constituted  by  the  first  and  last 
plants  of  all  the  rows  are  considered  guarc!  rows,  leaving  ten 
plantfc  in  each  row  to  be  considered  in  the  experiment. 

The  class  of  seed  used  in  each  row  is  shown  by  the  following; 
Clase  of  seed  rows  planted 

Small  light  1,2,2, 

heavy  4,5,6, 

Large  light  7,8,9,10, 

heavy  11,12,13. 


31 

To  facilitate  the  later  work  each  seed  was  planted  in  a 
small  body  of  loamy  sand  collected  from  the  "bed  of  the  creek 
where  it  had  been  washed  down  "by  recent  rains.  A  dibble  was 
used  to  make  a  small  hole  about  tv/o  inches  deep  and  one  and  one 
half  inches  across  the  top.  A  moderate  amount  of  sand  was  in- 
troduced and  the  hole  opened  again  with  the  dibble  to  a  depth 
of  about  one  and  one  quarter  inches.  Each  seed  was  placed  in 
its  hole  by  means  of  a  pair  of  forceps  so  that  it  lay  with  the 
suture  down,  embryo  uppermost  end  pointing  in  the  same  direction 
as  all  the  others,  the  long  diameter  of  the  seed  being  about 
horizontal.   This  placed  all  the  seed  in  the  same  relative  po- 
sition so  it  was  possible  later  to  find  the  endosperm  with  a 
minimum  disturbance  of  the  soil  about  the  plant.   The  effectiv- 
ness  of  this  precaution  was  apparent,  for  in  the  large  majority 
of  oases  the  surfece  of  the  soil  where  the  plant  emerged  was 
not  broken  while  removing  the  endosperm. 

The  unabsorbed  portion  of  the  endosperms  in  rows  1,3,4, 
6 ,7, 9, 11, &  13  was  removed  early  in  the  afternoon  of  the  first 
of  March.   In  the  case  of  the  small  light  seed,  the  endosperm 
vvas  nearly  all  liquified  in  some  cases  but  it  was  not  all  used 
up  in  any.  noticeably  more  was  left  in  the  small  heavy.  Be- 
tween the  light  and  heavy  large  seed  there  was  less  apparent  dif- 
ference in  the  amount  of  endosperm  remaining  but  between  the  small 
end  large  size  the  difference  was  very  marked.  \Sfhile  it  was 
nearly  used  up  in  the  small  seed,  apparently  half  of  the  endosperm 
in  many  cases  and  in  some  about  two  thirds  remained  in  the  large % 

Owing  to  force  of  circumstances  the  endosperms  were  not  re- 
moved for  a  little  more  than  twenty- four  hours  after  it  was  plan- 
ned to  do  so,  but  at  the  time  they  were  removed  the  plants  were 
but  two  and  one  half  inches  in  height. 


32 

It  was  about  two  weeks  "before  any  difference  could  "be  noted 
in  the  appearance  of  the  rows  thus  treated  and  those  not  treated. 
Then  for  a  time  there  teemed  to  be  a  checking  of  the  growth  in 
the  rows  treated  but  this  difference  has  disappeared  or  is  so 
slight  that  at  the  present  time  it  is  not  possible  to  tell 

which  rows  have  been  deprived  of  part  of  their  endosperm  and 

which  rows  have  not.   See  Figs.  10  and  11. 

On  the  twenty-second  of  March  the  heights  of  the  plants  measured 

"by  the  longest  leaf  were  as  follows: 

Heights  of  plants  in  millimeters. 

Plant  s 

:TowB:   1;   2:   3:   4:   5:   6:   7;   8:   9:  10:  11:  12:  13; 

1  152     162  170     178  218     184  216     246  248 

2  142  191  148  199  222  171     197  236     218  226  158 

3  175  169  161  141  208  182  163  208  218  215     240  170 

70  150  128  176  193  199  154  222     E15  23£  222  188 

5  176  200   90  186  199  204  223  201  219  216  211  236 

6  110  174  136  128  196  152  232  198  188  230  2Z6  160  221 

7  150  226  153  226  119  199  210  228  187  276  220  248  213 

8  140  201  173  209  228  220  236  239  226  221  210 

9  175  200  196     200  193  233  210  244  211  176  226  238 
10  130  197  196  SIC  118  201  161  220  233     234  217  245 
Averages  138  185  164  171  179  188  200  214  214  £28  220  222  213 

'.Vhile  the  longest  leaf  may  not  be  a  very  reliable  criterion 
of  the  development  of  the  plant,  the  averages  represent  fairly 
well  the  superficial  appearance  of  the  experiments  at  the  time. 
It  took  a  careful  scrutiny  to  make  sure  which  rows  had  had  the 
endosperm  removed  and  which  had  not,  if  no  reference  was  made 
to  the  record.   But  on  the  other  hand  there  was  no  difficulty 
in  deciding  which  rows  were  plantec  with  large  seed  and  which 
from  small. 

?ig.  1C  shows  the  appearance  of  the  plat  on  the  fourteenth 
of  April,  and  on  the  twenty-seventh  a  plant  was  taken  from  each 
row,  which  was  as  nearly  as  possible  a  representative  plant 
for  the  row.  Herewith,  Fig.  11,  is  shown  the  comparison  of  the 
development  of  the  plants.   There  seems  to  be  no  definite  oorre- 


33 

lation  between  the  removal  of  the  endosperm  and  the  comparative 
development  at  this  time. 

The  numbers  run  from  right  to  left  in  order  that  they  may 
correspond  with  the  location  of  the  rows  in  Pig.  10.   It  was 
necessary  to  take  the  picture  of  the  plat  from  this  side  on 
account  of  more  advantageous  light  conditions. 


COUCLUSIOES. 

Though  perhaps  it  is  futile  to  attempt  conclusions  at  this 
stage  of  the  experiments,  or  in  the  light  of  the  various  diffi- 

ties  in  the  way  of  making  a  completely  satisfactory  trial, 
it  seems  to  the  writer  that  there  is  considerable  doubt  east 
upon  the  theory  of  the  extra  food, supply.   If  this  factor  were 
at  all  the  most  important  one  it  would  seem  that  the  removal 
of  one  half  or  two-thirds  of  the  material  would  certainly  cause 
a  profound  difference  in  the  development  at  least  of  plants 
from  the  same  class  of  seed.  Moreover,  the  difference  between 
the  effect  on  the  small  seed  and  on  the  large  should  be  less 
u^on  the  small  seed,  proportionally  since  less  endosperm  in  pro- 
portion was  removed  from  it  than  from  the  large.   The  facts  as 
developed  from  an  examination  of  the  figures  in  regard  to  the 
heights  show  that  the  reverse  is  the  case  and  that  the  effect 
on  the  small  amounted  to  9,2$  while  the  effect  on  the  large 
was  but  4,2,1. 

is  certain  that  all  the  factors  concerned  in  what  we  are 
pleased  to  refer  to  as  vitality  and  vigor,  etc.,  are  really 
but  little  understood.   Therefore  since  there  is  something 
which  we  refer  to  as  vigor,  or  response  to  environment,  or 
indicate  by  various  other  terms,  is  it  not  possible  that  it 


;-.    8rt 

_  • 


24 
may  be  present  in  varying  degrees  in  the  germ  itself? 

Grant,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  is  an  inherent 
quality  of  the  soluble  proteins  in  the  embryo.   *7e  must  consider 
the  embryo  not  as  a  gamete  or  as  a  pair  of  them  but  as  a  zygote. 
The  combination  of  the  hereditary  equipment  has  already  been 
made  and  determined.   2ven  though  the  pollination  is  by  the 
same  plant  there  is  a  chance  for  a  certain  amount  of  varia- 
bility on  account  of  the  maturation  process.   Then  is  it  not 
entirely  possible  that  a  certain  degree  of  the  capability  of  the 
plent  is  already  determined  in  this  "plant  packed  and  ready 
for  shipment".   There  may  tie  some  correlation  between  the  ex- 
tent of  the  development  of  the  seed  and  the  capability  of  mak- 
ing a  large  plant  under  proper  circumstances  after  planting. 
A  young  animal  loses  its  power  of  response  to  proper  food  quite 
early  in  life,  as  is  common  knowledge  to  stock  men.   It  is  en- 
tirely concievable  to  the  author  that  some  measure  of  loss  of 
power  to  develop  may  be  due  to  the  same  conditions,  whatever 
they  are,  that  cause  the  development  of  a  smaller  endosperm. 

It  becomes  necessary  to  discover  some  other  factor  than 
hereditary  equipment  on  account  of  the  variation  of  th<-  weight 
of  kernels  in  the  same  spike,  if  their  equipment  be  considered 
the  same,  and  this  certainly  is  not  shown  to  be  extra  food  supply 

. 

by  the  experiments  here  recorded. 


'    ' 


35 


'REFERENCES. 

1.  Seed  wheat  by  B.A.Cobb.   I.S.Wales.    Mi  so,  pub.   Ho.    6E5  p.  2. 

2.  S.P.I.   Bui.   #78  p.    30   from  Utah  Ex.    Stn.   Rpt  1892,   p.    168. 

3.  Same  p  31  from  Indiana  Ex.    Stn.   Eul  36,    p.    110-128. 

4.  Abstract   in  Expt.    Stn.   Record  ,    Vol.    V.   p.    526. 

5.  Same  Vol.   VII.   p.    679. 

6.  Same  Vol  XII.  p.  from  Univ.  College  of  Wales  Eep't.  1899,  p.  68-70 

7.  I.  Dak.  Exp.  Stn.  Kept.  1901,  p.  30. 

8.  Eept.  Ontario  Agr.  College  1911,  p.  182. 

9.  Abstr.  E.S.Eec.  V.  XZVI.  p.  434  from  Proc.  of  Amer.  Soo.  of 


Agron.  1(1907-1909)  pr,.  98-104. 
10.  ;'jon.  Agron.  26(1900)  Ho.  1.  pp.  20-23. 


p.    672. 


11.  B.  P.  I.  Eul.  Ho  78  p.  32.   Abstr.  in  Es.  Kec  v  Xv, 

12.  Same  from  Tenn.  Bui  v.  16,  Ho.  4,  p.  77. 

13.  Same  as  reference  1.   Page  38. 

14.  B.P.I.  Bui  78,  fr.  Agr.  Gazette  of  H.S.V:ales,  12(1901)  #9, 
pp.  1053-1062 

15.  E.S.S.v  V.  p.  404,  from  Centbl.  Agr.  Chem.  p.  404 

16.  E.S.E.v  VII.  p.  209. 

17.  Z.S.E.v  VII.  p. 209 

18.  S.S.E.v  IX.  p.  553. 

19.  Year  Book  U.S.D.A.  1896,  p.  92. 

20.  ^  S.B.  v  ZIV  432. 

21.  Cal.  Ex.  Stn.  BuL  181,  from  Eept.  Ont.  Agr.  Farm,  1901,  pp  82-111 

22.  E.S.E.v  111.  p.  37  from  Aberdeen  &  H.  of  Scotland  Coll.  of 
Agr.  Bui.  11,  1907, p. 8. 

23.  E.S.E.v  XXVI  p.  636,  From  West  of  Scotland  Agr.  Col. 
Eept.  10(1911)  pp. 225-229. 

24.  Vt.  Agr.  Exp.  Stn.  Eept.  1913-1914,  Bui.  177.  M.E.Cummings. 

25.  E.S.E.v  V.  p. 226  fr.  Centbl.  Agr.  Chern.  1892  p.  545. 

26.  S.S.E.v  XI.  353. 

27.  Same  as  ref.  1,  p.  31. 

28.  S.S.E.v  XVIII.  p.  47. 
£9.  E.S.B.  v  X21.  p.  632. 

30.  Giro  Ho.  11,  Kansas  State  Agr.  Col. 

31.  Bui.  25,  Iowa  Sxp.  Stn. 


3.P.L  Bui.  78,  p.  38. 

U.S.I'.A.  1'ear  Book  1896,  pp.  305-322 

E.S.E.v  VIII.  p.  117. 

Eept  ¥.  Dak.  Stn.  1901.  pp.  30-44. 

Circ.  So.  23,  Purdue  Unlv".  Ept.  Stn.  Ind. 

Bui  128,  Iowa  Exp.  Stn.  pp.  93-127 


Bui  115,  Minn.  2xpt.  Stn.  p 
Same  as  reference  1.  p.  38. 


368 


32, 
33, 
?4, 
35, 
36, 
?7, 
38, 
39, 
40-  3&me,  p.  40 

41.  E.3.E.  v.  VII,  p.  497. 

42.  E.S.E.  v.  XI  p. 633  fr.  Chem.  Ztg.  23(1899)  So.  74,  p. 275. 

43.  Bui  90,  Minn.  Expt.  Stn. 

44.  E.3.E.  v.  ZS.III  p.  336  fr.  Illus.  Landw.  Ztg.  30(1910) 
i;o.  19,  pp.  175-176. 

45.  Bui.  181,  Cal  Expt.  Stn.  p.  394 

46.  Bui.  29,  iiinn.  Expt.  Dtn. 

47.  same ,  p.  149. 

48.  3ul  85,  ilinn.  Expt.  Stn. 

49.  Bui  181,  Cal  Expt.  Stn.  p.  163. 

50.  Bui  29,   iiinn  Zxpt.    Stn. 

51.  B.P.I. Eul   178  p.    *3. 


52.  Same  as  reference  JTo.  1.  page  5. 

53.  B.P.I.Bul.  78,  p.  33 

54.  Bui.  113,  Kentucky  Expt .  Stn. 
F5.  B.P.I. 78,  p.  34. 

56.  Bui  104,  Uebr,  Expt.  Stn.  p.  34 

57.  Bui.  231,  Ohio  Expt.  Stn.  p. 11. 
58. 

59.  Bui.  21,  Mo.  Sxpt.  Stn. 

60.  Bui.  128,  So.  Dak.  Expt.  Stn. 

61.  Bui  33,  Kan.  Sxpt.  Stn.  p.  14. 

62.  Agricultural  .Engineering  "by  Davidson,  p.  281  on. 

63.  Bui  115,  1,'inn.  Agr.  Expt.  Stn.  p.  369.  Kept.  1908-1909. 

64.  7th  Ann.  P.ept.  Amer.  Soo.  Agr.  Engineers,  p.  57. 

65.  Sante  ae  ref.  So  1.  pp.  50,  52,  53. 


inin 
mini1 


minimum 

iimimiiiiiii 


iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniii 


~ 


Jig.  1, 
Original . 


Fit'     ISO.       A    section   of   a    fanning  mill    in 
l,l;,st      is     directed     below     an-1 
i  lie   sieves. 


J-ig  2. 

Jfrom  Agricultura^  Engineering,  Davidson. 


I.-;.,  ITS  A  section  of  a  fanning  mill  in 
which  h<'  blast  does  not  strike  the  gram 
until  after  it  has  passed  through  the  sieves. 


ig.   3. 


Fig.    179.      Another    view    of    the    type    of 
machine   shown   in   Fig.    178. 


Jig,  4.  Both  above  from  Agricultural  Engineering,  Davidson. 


FANNING    MIT. I.   SELECTION. 


39 


Shake','    Mill    for   Si-paratinj,'   S  > 


fvrei-n  NO.  T  H!  I'uhl   be  Just   coarse  i»!i->  ii-h  i"  b-i    i: 
It-  is    used    sjni|.lv    in    run    oft   .-;i  i'-K 

Ki'iiin    bai-kw-aril    in    the    null,    so    as    to    l.-i    ii    drop    thro  I     n 

......  ,    .Tin'   li^ht    Uci-iifls    ;M-f    blown  «pasl    tin.-  >ri:,l    cif   screen    No.    '•'. 

lic-.icji'i'  kiTnc'I>;  f::ll  .  No,  ".      Roard  'No.  i'  may  bo  moved   to 

..•kw:ii-il   I"   thro  •       mull    per  cent   <>(  u-i-Min   mi   screen    X" 

::.   ns   ili'sin-il.      Screen    No.    :;   shdMlil    )"•   coarse    I-IUIM.«II    to   !•  i    the    small 
Is  i  hrough  onto     ci  een  X".    i. 

It  is  ;Mijiis;:,i,i,-  :is  tn'slMiii  an,d  maj  i»>  mnvi'd  forward  »r  backwurd 
in  n-j;-nlate  the  amount  ni'  ^niiii  it  will  catch.  Screen  X"  I  is  inn- 
oninii;li  t"  c:i:-ry  nearly  nil  of  the  KIM!:)  over  into  market  grain.  An> 
<=nli-  shake  mill  may  be  tixi-il  nc  in  this  \v;iy.  Si'parai  inn  by  weight  caii 
easily  !>._>  made  wi.th  tho  cnil  shako  mills,  but  tin-  I:H-KI-  ke  in  In- 

separated    from    the    small    ones'  in    any    proportion    ilesiri-d.    simply    by 
using  coarse  or  fine  scve.-ns  in   the  haver  part  of  mill. 


Jig.    5.    (62) 


i-"i.  s,'trti>i>f  Grain   .\<-<-(n'(lina  to  Weight. 


.    6.    (64) 


40 


Fig.  So. 

. 

fall  on 

hitiir,  but  nt  ' 
Imslit'j-  , 


.    t.y  j.irmers.     The 
•Le  crank,  E.      A  brush,  A  A,  is 
-ulated  by 
,  ink-  ihe  tailings 
i  .1  50  bushels  per 
per  liour  as  at  20 
•    r  it  i«  done.     The  brush,  A  A, 
.ne  ei*e  of 
ailiiji,'  <-,iii  still  be  done  by  working  the 


-^till  be  <loiie  by  working  the 
cimteoiltpictgrardea  iuuy  be  prepared 

wit)'  This  nun-Inn.-,  :ii    •  •  '••     For  Australian  wheat  tne 


IPig.    7.    (65) 


.  34.     1,  li"!-r  •    revolving 

.     .   fot   Hi.-  r<'Ui»v;i]    .,t'   COSTM  !II;L 
l,Iinm-h    whii'Ii 
•In-!    .nnl  i-liiitl    L-   t'li.v. 

.  ted  with  3:  ',,  *,  v.  to.  si^m- 

f nn u  wlii.rh  vsn'Huih  '_T.t.ic-.  ,il  _'r;nn;ii>- 

•  le  in-u^ii 

i.    >!IM\MI    ,H'tiii'_-    mi 

. 

i.-.  ,IL  t  Itn-i*  piirts    t-iicli  riisily  rrjiliir.'- 
sililf  )>y  .1  >.'f.'.']i  ipf   ;iny  'l.'^i;   •  • 

• 
n.t'tii!.  ivlii.-l,  ii.-  Iliit  v.  i 

'.til      III"      lll.irllll.r-,    ;i|ii|      !,.   I|.   r 
II!. 


8.    (65) 


41 


Fig.  36. — An  English  yrader  in  which  the  meshes  are  made  of  wire  in  s;n 
13 1..-  adjuxtdbU  in    width,  without  removal.    The  machine  gives  fours.-'. 
and  .lot's  very  irood  work.     At  the  back  near  the  top  is  the  brush  for  kr 
meshes  dear!     This  machine  may  be  had  with  or  without  a  fan.  ' 


Tig.    9.    (65) 


42 


,  10.  Photograi-li  "by  the  author. 


11.  Photograph.  ~by  the  author. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 


BOOKS   REQUESTED   BY  ANOTHER   BORROWER 
ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  AFTER  ONE  WEEK. 
RENEWED   BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO 
IMMEDIATE   RECALL 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

D4613   (12/76) 


